Showing posts with label Juvenile Offenders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Juvenile Offenders. Show all posts

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Polysubstance Use among Minority Adolescent Males Incarcerated for Serious Offenses

BACKGROUND:
Adolescent juvenile offenders are at high risk for problems associated with drug use, including polysubstance use (i.e., use of a variety of drugs). The combination of juvenile offending and polysubstance use presents a significant public and child health concern.

OBJECTIVE:
This study explored polysubstance use among a sample of youth incarcerated for serious offenses. We examined several risk factors for substance use and delinquency (i.e., early and frequent substance use, prior history of arrests, school expulsion, Black ethnicity), as well as the association between aggression and polysubstance use.

METHODS:
Data were collected via questionnaires from 373 serious male juvenile offenders upon intake into a secure locked facility. Youth were on average 16 years old, and minority youth were overrepresented (28.1% Black, 53.1% Latino). Poisson regressions were used to assess the associations between the risk factors, aggression, and polysubstance use.

RESULTS:
Consistent with the literature, Black youth reported less polysubstance use and later age of drug use onset than White and Latino youth. Findings suggest that Latino juvenile offenders and those with an early and problematic pattern of substance use are at heightened risk for polysubstance use. Aggression was not significantly related to polysubstance use, over and above the risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS:
Given that Latino youth experience low rates of treatment for substance use, the development of culturally-sensitive interventions for these youth is needed. Interventions should also be multifaceted to address the multitude of risk factors associated with polysubstance use among juvenile offenders.

Purchase full article at:   http://goo.gl/vqQn1f

  • 1Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
  • 2Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
  • 3Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
  • 4Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; University of Virginia.
  • 5Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
  • 6University of California, Irvine. 
  •  2015 Apr 16;45(2):205-220. Epub 2015 Sep 5.



Tuesday, March 15, 2016

Juvenile Penalty or Leniency: Sentencing of Juveniles in the Criminal Justice System

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of being juvenile on sentencing in the criminal justice system. More specifically, youth transferred to criminal court are compared to adults in terms of likelihood of incarceration, jail length, and prison length. 

In this study, 2 national data sets are merged. The juvenile sample includes 3,381 convicted offenders, and the adult sample is comprised of 6,529 convicted offenders. The final sample is 9,910 offenders across 36 U.S. counties. 

The key independent variable is juvenile status, and the dependent variables are incarceration, jail length, and prison length. Because of the multilevel nature of the data, hierarchical linear modeling is used across all models. 

Juveniles are punished less severely in the jail incarceration decision. However, when youth are actually sentenced to incarceration (either jail or prison), they are given longer confinement time than adults

Purchase full article at:   http://goo.gl/CMRfdh

 2016 Mar 14.




Monday, February 29, 2016

Mental Illness and Juvenile Offenders

Within the past decade, reliance on the juvenile justice system to meet the needs of juvenile offenders with mental health concerns has increased. Due to this tendency, research has been conducted on the effectiveness of various intervention and treatment programs/approaches with varied success. Recent literature suggests that because of interrelated problems involved for youth in the juvenile justice system with mental health issues, a dynamic system of care that extends beyond mere treatment within the juvenile justice system is the most promising. The authors provide a brief overview of the extent to which delinquency and mental illness co-occur; why treatment for these individuals requires a system of care; intervention models; and the juvenile justice systems role in providing mental health services to delinquent youth. Current and future advancements and implications for practitioners are provided.

The juvenile justice (detention, probation, youth corrections facilities, etc.) system is currently faced with the task of providing mental health assessments and treatment services for its youth, as there is greater reliance on the juvenile justice system to do so. According to Garascia (2005), the juvenile justice system was originally both a rehabilitative and preventative approach, emphasizing the needs and rights of children over the appeal to punish them [1]. In accordance with The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, the ultimate goal of juvenile justice was to divert youth from the formal, punitive processing of the adult justice system. This in turn resulted in the use of community-based programs rather than large institutions. The 1980s to the 1990s presented an interesting shift in the justice system’s treatment of juvenile offenders. Prior to the 1980s, juveniles were seen as rehabilitative; however, due to a short-lived surge in violent delinquency, protecting the community became the primary goal [2,3,4]. Consequently, the juvenile justice system developed an approach that uses a punishment/criminalization perspective over a rehabilitative/medicalization perspective [2,3,5]. Similar to the zero-tolerance attitude of the education system, in the early 1990s more than half of the states in the U.S. made revisions that allowed for juvenile offenders to be easily prosecuted in the adult criminal court and began to pass more punitive laws to address adolescent crime [2,6]. Although youth have committed violent and nonviolent crimes at a lower rate in the past few decades, Harms (2002) posits that the number of youth processed via the juvenile justice system has increased [7]. In 1960 approximately 1,100 delinquency cases were processed daily, while in 2009 juvenile courts handled about 4000 delinquency cases daily, and in 2013, approximately 2900 delinquency cases were processed daily [8]. The National Juvenile Justice Council (NJJC) estimates that the number of delinquency cases increased 30% between 1985 and 2009, however there was a 9% decrease between 1985 and 2013 [8]. More specifically, delinquency caseloads involving drug offenses, person offenses, and public order offenses increased, while property offense cases decreased between 1985 and 2013 [8]. The number of delinquency cases involving detention peaked in 2002, but decreased 44% through 2013 to the lowest level since 1985 [8]. According to the NJJC, despite the decrease in the volume of delinquency cases involving detention, the proportion of cases detained was larger in 2013 (21%) than in 1985 (19%).Between 1985 and 2013, the likelihood that a delinquency case would be handled informally (without petition for adjudication) decreased [8]. Although there was an intermediary increase, 31% of all delinquency cases resulted in either adjudication or waiver to criminal court in 2013, much similar to the 30% of all cases in 1985 [8]. It appears that some efforts have been made in the most recent years to decrease the number of youth cases processed in the juvenile justice system; however, this may be done by processing cases more informally or transferring cases to adult court…

Full article at:   http://goo.gl/7ymwTp

By:  Underwood LA1,2, Washington A3,4.
  • 1School of Psychology and Counseling, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA 23464, USA. leeunde@regent.edu.
  • 2Youth Development Institute, New York, NY 10013, USA. leeunde@regent.edu.
  • 3School of Psychology and Counseling, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA 23464, USA. aryswas@mail.regent.edu.
  • 4Youth Development Institute, New York, NY 10013, USA. aryswas@mail.regent.edu. 
  •  2016 Feb 18;13(2). pii: E228. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13020228.



Friday, February 26, 2016

The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for The Treatment of Adolescent Sexual Offenders with Paraphilic Disorders

The primary aim of these guidelines was to evaluate the role of pharmacological agents in the treatment of adolescents with paraphilic disorders who are also sexual offenders or at-risk of sexual offending. Psychotherapeutic and psychosocial treatments were also reviewed. Adolescents with paraphilic disorders specifically present a different therapeutic challenge as compared to adults. In part, the challenge relates to adolescents being in various stages of puberty and development, which may limit the use of certain pharmacological agents due to their potential side effects. In addition, most of the published treatment programmes have used cognitive behavioural interventions, family therapies and psychoeducational interventions. Psychological treatment is predicated in adolescents on the notion that sexually deviant behaviour can be controlled by the offender, and that more adaptive behaviours can be learned.

The main purposes of these guidelines are to improve the quality of care and to aid physicians in their clinical decisions. These guidelines brought together different expert views and involved an extensive literature research. Each treatment recommendation was evaluated and discussed with respect to the strength of evidence for efficacy, safety, tolerability and feasibility. An algorithm is proposed for the treatment of paraphilic disorders in adolescent sexual offenders or those who are at risk...

In summary: Psychosocial education was an unclear combination of CBT and education mainly focused on sexual attitude and the improvement of victim empathy. Only four studies (Hains et al., ; Graves et al.; Lab et al. ; Heran ) had comparison groups receiving non-specific treatment or a waiting-list control group. Psychosocial education treatments were principally delivered in peer group settings. In total, more than 500 male adolescent sexual offenders (no females) were included in these programmes. Recidivism rates were used as outcome measures in about half of studies, 8–20% recidivism for sexual offences was observed depending on the duration of the follow-up (10 years when the recidivism rate was 20%). In the other studies different outcome measures were used and cannot be compared except for victim empathy, which was improved. Generally, due to the various and uncontrolled study designs used, the results were not convincing...

In summary: This combination of well-structured CBT and family therapy seems very promising, especially for sexual offences but has only been studied by one North American group. It needs to be replicated by other groups. The studies were randomised and the comparison groups were using, in most cases, CBT as usual, a hundred adolescents (mainly sexual offenders, including three females) were receiving MST...

In summary: Psychosocial education was an unclear combination of CBT and education mainly focused on sexual attitude and the improvement of victim empathy. Only four studies (Hains et al., ; Graves et al.; Lab et al. ; Heran ) had comparison groups receiving non-specific treatment or a waiting-list control group. Psychosocial education treatments were principally delivered in peer group settings. In total, more than 500 male adolescent sexual offenders (no females) were included in these programmes. Recidivism rates were used as outcome measures in about half of studies, 8–20% recidivism for sexual offences was observed depending on the duration of the follow-up (10 years when the recidivism rate was 20%). In the other studies different outcome measures were used and cannot be compared except for victim empathy, which was improved. Generally, due to the various and uncontrolled study designs used, the results were not convincing...

From this review we may conclude that for the treatment of adolescent sexual offenders:
  • overall, there is a low level of scientific evidence;
  • randomised controlled trials are lacking, which can be attributed to the logistic, legal and ethical challenges faced by researchers on such sensitive social issues (Långström et al. 2013);
  • research focused on pharmacological treatment is also lacking;
  • the effectiveness of segregated treatment units for juvenile sexual offenders has not been proven; however, it is often necessary for the juvenile to be temporarily placed outside of his family home when he has perpetrated against family members.
The study results indicate the following useful trends:
  • when pre- and post-evaluation is available, it is in favour of the treatment group (as in adults), particularly in juvenile sexual offenders at moderate risk of reoffending;
  • drop outs of treatment programmes do worse in the long term than sexual offenders who completed the programme (as in adults);
  • differences between “older” and “younger” adolescents are suggested (Hunter and Goodwin, 1992);
  • information concerning potential adverse outcomes of treatment is not available;
  • motivation for treatment is generally not assessed. Due to the high rate of treatment non-compliance, incorporating into pre-treatment and treatment programmes strategies that minimise attrition may be helpful (Reitzel and Carbonell 2006). In general, adjudicated youths are more motivated for treatment; and
  • finally, the important roles that caregiver discipline and youth association with deviant peers play in the development and maintenance of antisocial behaviour have been supported consistently by an extensive correlational and longitudinal literature (Loeber & Farrington 1998)... 
Full article at:   http://goo.gl/FJauTf
By:  Florence Thibaut, a , * John M. W. Bradford, b Peer Briken, c Flora De La Barra, d Frank Häßler, e Paul Cosyns, f and on behalf of the WFSBP Task Force on Sexual Disorders
a University Hospital Cochin, Faculty of Medicine Paris Descartes, INSERM U 894 CPN, Paris, France
b University of Ottawa, Institute of Mental Health Research, Division of Forensic Psychiatry, Queen’s University, Clinical Director, Forensic Treatment Unit, Brockville Mental Health Centre, Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, Brockville, Ontario, Canada
c Institute for Sex Research and Forensic Psychiatry, Center for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
d East Psychiatry and Mental Health Department, University of Chile, Clinica Las Condes, Chile
e Clinic for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Medicine of Rostock, Rostock, Germany
f University Forensic Centre (University Hospital of Antwerp), Belgium
* Chair: Florence Thibaut (France). Co-Chairs: John W. Bradford (Canada), Paul Cosyns (Belgium). Secretary: Peer Briken (Germany). Members: Flora de la Barra (Chile), Yesim Taneli (Turkey), Harvey Gordon (UK), Ariel Rosler (Israel), Elie Witztum (Israel).
CONTACT Professor Florence Thibaut ;  rf.phpa@tuabiht.ecnerolf, University Hospital Cochin (site Tarnier), Department of Psychiatry and Addictive disorders, 89 rue d’Assas, 75006Paris, France.
World J Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jan 2; 17(1): 2–38. Published online 2015 Nov 23. doi:  10.3109/15622975.2015.1085598





Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Family-Based HIV & Sexually Transmitted Infection Risk Reduction for Drug-Involved Young Offenders: 42-Month Outcomes

This study tested a family-based human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention approach integrated within an empirically supported treatment for drug-involved young offenders, Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT). 

A randomized, controlled, two-site community-based trial was conducted with 154 youth and their parents. Drug-involved adolescents were recruited in detention, randomly assigned to either MDFT or Enhanced Services as Usual (ESAU), and assessed at intake, 3, 6, 9, 18, 24, 36, and 42-month follow-ups. Youth in both conditions received structured HIV/STI prevention in detention and those in MDFT also received family-based HIV/STI prevention as part of ongoing treatment following detention release. Youth in both conditions and sites significantly reduced rates of unprotected sex acts and STI incidence from intake to 9 months. They remained below baseline levels of STI incidence (10%) over the 42-month follow-up period. 

At Site A, adolescents who were sexually active at intake and received MDFT showed greater reduction in overall frequency of sexual acts and number of unprotected sexual acts than youth in ESAU between intake and 9-month follow-ups. These intervention differences were evident through the 42-month follow-up. Intervention effects were not found for STI incidence or unprotected sex acts at Site B. 

Intensive group-based and family intervention in detention and following release may reduce sexual risk among substance-involved young offenders, and a family-based approach may enhance effects among those at highest risk. Site differences in intervention effects, study limitations, clinical implications, and future research directions are discussed.

Purchase full article at:   http://goo.gl/dJcboM

  • 1Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL.
  • 2Department of Psychology, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX.
  •  2016 Feb 16. doi: 10.1111/famp.12206 



Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Factors Associated with Recidivism among Adolescents Girls in Conflict with the Law in an Institution in Brasília, Federal District, Brazil

Recidivism is a challenge for the Brazilian socio-educational system because it is associated with personal, social and environmental factors, especially among juvenile offenders. 

This study examined key characteristics and potential association with recidivism in 391 female adolescent offenders from a correctional institution in Brasília, Federal District, Brazil, between 2004 and 2011. Cross-sectional data on socio-demographics, drug use and offense characteristics from institutional information were examined. Associate factors with recidivism were examined using negative binomial regression analyses. 32.5% of offenders were recidivists at present admission and the mean frequency of recidivism among recidivists was 2.16. About half (53.6%) of the sample reported drug use. 

After the adjustment, recidivism was positively associated with: age; offender's drug use; residence status; offense type; and no family drug use. Factors associated with juvenile offenders' recidivism confirm findings from elsewhere, and should inform targeted interventions in Brazil.

Select socio-demographic, drug use and offense characteristics of female adolescent offenders (n = 284). Brasília, Federal District, Brazil, 2004-2011. 

CharacteristicFrequency (n = 284)%
Age (years)
≤ 159939.4
168028.2
179633.8
1893.2
Type of offence
Robbery/Attempted robbery11640.8
Theft207.0
Drug dealing/Possession7426.1
Attempt against life289.9
Threat and extortion144.9
Bodily injury/Fight/Contempt124.2
Other207.0
Offender drug use
No13447.2
Yes15052.8
Family drug use
No21575.7
Yes6924.3
Attending school at the time of detention
No18565.1
Yes9934.9
Residence status
Parents/Other relatives19830.3
On her own8669.7


Full article at:   http://goo.gl/7QsiAm

  • 1Faculdade de Ceilândia, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brasil.
  • 2Instituto de Ciências Exatas, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brasil.
  • 3Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada.
  • 4Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brasil.
  • 5Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
  •  2015 Dec;31(12):2569-76. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00171014. 



Wednesday, February 10, 2016

A Critical Examination of "Being Black" in the Juvenile Justice System

The current study examined the role of race in juvenile court outcomes across 3 decision-making stages. This analysis was conducted with a random sample of all delinquent referrals in a Northeast state from January 2000 through December 2010 (N = 68,188). 

In addition to traditional logistic regression analysis, a propensity score matching (PSM) approach was utilized to create comparable samples of Black and White youth and provide a more rigorous methodological test of the relationship between race and juvenile court processing. Results indicated that even after the use of PSM techniques, race was still found to influence the likelihood of intake (OR = 1.54; 95% C.I. = 1.48-1.62, p < .001), adjudication (OR = 0.80; 95% C.I. = 0.76-0.84, p < .001), and disposition (OR = 1.64; 95% C.I. = 1.54-1.76, p < .001) outcomes. 

The findings show that Black youth received disadvantaged court outcomes at 2 of the 3 stages, even after balancing both groups on a number of confounders. Black youth were treated harsher at intake and judicial disposition, but received leniency at adjudication compared with similarly situated Whites. 

These relationships were the most evident at the stage of judicial disposition. The findings impact both researchers' and policymakers' strategies to more fully understand the complex relationship between race and social control. 

They also reaffirm the noticeable role that selection bias can play in the research surrounding race differences in juvenile court outcomes, and highlight the importance of utilizing a more stringent statistical model to control for selection bias. 

Purchase full article at:   http://goo.gl/oXWsLT

 2016 Feb 1.